# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Watson v. First National Bankcard Center

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386005_1448%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1999
- **Citation:** 525 U.S. 1122

## Text

Supreme Court, US. -

; FILED

98 862 SEP 28 19%

NO. OFFice OF THE CLERK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1998

CONSUELO M. WATSON, Petitioner
Vv.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK/
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER, Respondent

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UN: TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT

CONSUELO WATSON, Pro Se
11718 Norwick Plaza #34
Omaha, Nebraska 68164
(402)493-8121

sciapaaaccaeiaaaeecammaamameen

i. If Prima Facie and the Burden of Proof showing deliberate
Retaliation has been established in a Title VII Civil Rights Act
of Discrimination and Retaliation, ultimately leading up to the
Petitioner’s termination of employment, is Summary
Judgment a true and justified rendered decision?

2. Moreover, if during the Petitioner’s employment, she realizes
a serious connection between the employer and its’ hidden
“behind the scene”, 3 party Law Enforcement Entity,
causing additional harassment toward the Petitioner, is it
prudent then, for the Supreme Court to decide, if the lower
courts refuse to see the serious activity of harassment and
retaliated violations against the Petitioner?

3. Most Importantly, when deciding the case, if the extraneous
details involved in the case are secretive, intimidating, and in
some cases, life threatening, from the result of OUTSIDE
INFLUENCE: Law Enforcement Groups, Organized
Satanic Groups, Various Racial Groups, and World-Wide
Media Entertainment Groups, causing a member(s) of the
bench to persuade and conclude with “personal biases” toward
the case, isn’t it wise, just and FAIR, then, for the Supreme
Court to intervene and render the final judgment without the

interference of OUTSIDE Persuasion?

LIST OF PARTIES
The parties to the proceedings below in the 8" Circuit Court
were the Petitioner, Consuelo Watson, Pro Se, and the Respondent,
First National Bank/First Bankcard Center, represented by
George C. Rozmarin.

a aca arate a aca cea ae aia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED. .........-+-+-+++0eeereeeeereereerees® i
LIST OF PARTIES. .........-2cescscceesereceserseneeceerecereeseees il
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. ........---00-sceeerereeereerserere re iv
OPINIONS BELOW. ........--.-:-ceeeeceeeeeeeeeesreseseenee senses l

JURISDICTION. ...........000eeceeceeeeeeerecseeesnceecsenerssceees l

STATUTE INVOLVED. ........-0.:seceeeeeeeneerer essen es neescee l

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ......------0s0eeeeerrrererersene 2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.......-.---2:2-:508 14

A. Due to non-investigation of the Petitioner’s case,
in its’ entirety, by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.

B. The Legal Requirements for Discrimination and
Retaliation charges were satisfied.

C. Other Casual Connections while under the employ of
First National Bank/First Bankcard Center.

CONCLUSION. ....0..cccccvccccecssssccccccsceverccseesenenesserrors 19
APPENDIX

Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals For the
Eighth Circuit .............ssseseseseserseeseceeesersesesees® App. |

Memorandum and Order In The United States District
Court For The District Of Nebraska........-..-+-++++++++ App. 2

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Federal Statute

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...................0e00

28 USC §1254 (1)

Pee

ae ee

re - -

The Petitioner, Consuelo Watson asks the Supreme Court of the
United States of America, the nation under God, to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit,
entered on July 6, 1998.

OPINIONS BELOW

The court of appeals for the Eighth Circuit had no opinion, and the
decision is reprinted in the appendix. The decision of the United
States District Court of Nebraska is typeset in the appendix.

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On July 7, 1998, the district court of
Nebraska granted Summary Judgment to the Respondent. On July 6,
1998, the Eighth Circuit Affirmed the decision of the district court.
The Jurisdiction to review judgment of the Eighth Circuit is invoked
under 28 USC § 1254 (1).

STATUTE INVOLVED

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides in part: It shall be
an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate
against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or act and
origin.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A.

The Petitioner brought a Civil Rights Title VII action against
the Respondent for Discrimination and Retaliation, after the Petitioner
inquired with Frank Kelly, Manager of the Bankcard Center (BCC)
Fraud Department of First National Bank (FNB), and Michelle Leo
(newly appointed assistant to Kelly), about their decision for a
promotion between two workers, Vivian Hart, and African American,
and Adrienne Miller, a Caucasian American.

The action also includes harassment, manipulation and abuse
from the "secret" work of Federal Agents against the Petitioner while
under the employ of the Respondent, thereafter and currently.

The Petitioner had been employed with FNB from January
1987 to May 1995 and began her Investigative career in the BCC
Fraud Department in April 1992. Two weeks after the Petitioner
started her new position, Sr. Investigator K.J. Kuchta had accepted a
position as a manager in Oklahoma City after receiving and acting
upon a Headhunter/Recruiter's telephone call, searching for someone
to fill the position.

As a result, the Petitioner, fresh and new in her position,
briefly thought about career opportunities in the future, and asked
Kelly if it was "OK" to receive such calls. Kelly responded saying the
Investigators receive the calls "all the time," and if the Investigators
feel qualified, they act upon the calls. The Petitioner left Kelly's
office with an optimistic outlook on future career possibilities.

In May 1995, precisely remembering her initial conversation
with Kelly concerning headhunter calls, the Petitioner received a call
from a Headhunter, for the first time. The Headhunter was looking for
someone to fill a management position with a credit card company in

Cincinnati, OH.

The Petitioner wasn't comfortable making a verbal "announcement" to
the other Investigators about the call, and simply photocopied the
details of the position and passed the information along to the others.
FBC management, at this point, decided to rely on the Bank's policy
of Headhunter's calling the Bank by terminating the Petitioner, yet
Kelly had previously stated it was "OK: to accept the calls.

Moreover, when K.J. Kuchta departed from the bank, the department,
as a whole, wished him well, with full knowledge of the fact that he
was leaving from the result of a Headhunter call.

Prior to the Petitioner being terminated from FNB, and after
learning of Kelly's decision to promote Michelle Leo and Adrienne
Miller in October 1994, the Petitioner asked Kelly and Leo the
reasons Vivian Hart had not been considered and promoted to the
position as Leo's assistant instead of Adrienne Miller. The Petitioner
made the inquiry for the following reasons: Kelly had originally
chosen Investigator Tami Neuberger, (who voluntarily ended her
employment with FNB) as his Assistant. Leo, however, was
hysterically and emotionally upset with Kelly's decision since she had
been in the department longer than Neuberger. As a result, Kelly
recanted his decision, after choosing Neuberger, and gave Leo the
position instead, due to the fact that Leo had more time in the
department. In comparison, since those were the grounds and
conditions Kelly chose Leo on, then Leo and Kelly should have
chosen Hart for the same reason. Both Leo and Hart, although in two
separate employment capacities, shared the same employment profile.
Both had been in the department 10 years, both had perfect
attendance, both were dependable, loyal and committed to their jobs.
The only differences between the two were their ethnic racial
differences. On the other hand, Adrienne Miller, Leo's best friend and
confidant had only been in the department 6 months and did not share
the same employment background as Leo and Hart. The Petitioner's
Question to both Kelly and Leo: If Kelly recanted his original
decision to promote Neuberger and chose Leo instead, based

3

on Leo's length of time in the department and her credentials as a
good-standing employee, then why wasn't Hart, who has the exact

employee profile as Leo, promoted as Leo's Assistant, instead of
Adrienne Miller?

After the Petitioner made the racial comparison, the Petitioner
suffered Retaliation and Harassment from October 1994 to May 1995,
which lead up to the Petitioner being terminated from FNB, May
1995.

The following includes the Retaliation and Harassment the Petitioner
encountered:

Petitioner using the 6th floor restroom

Petitioner using a spray cleaner to clean her area
Petitioner drying her umbrella in her cubicle

Petitioner handling a "Hot Call"

Petitioner using a vacuum to clean her area after a holiday-
weekend.

Petitioncr overlooked for management duties

. Petitioner submitting a Laser '95 Idea/Suggestion

. Petitioner terminated

a ee Oe

CO ID

Using the 6th Floor Restroom: Two weeks after the Petitioner
asked Leo and Kelly the reasons Hart wasn't promoted, the Petitioner
went to the 6th floor where the break room is also located, to use the
restroom because the restroom on the second floor where the Fraud
Department is located was in use and full. The Petitioner and Leo
met at the elevators, along with Adrienne Miller, Investigators Tal
Layne and Steve Thompson. In a condescending, belittling and
embarrassing manner, Leo abrasively asked the Petitioner,

"WHAT ARE YOU DOING UP HERE?" Not only did the
Petitioner feel embarrassed among the other Investigators, but she
felt, at this moment, belittled and emotionally threatened by Leo's
new position and authority over her.

ee es a RT - IS

PG ST Ge er ee nee oe) On WS Pee i -

Using a Spray Cleaner: In an effort to comply with Kelly’s
managerial directive, which he had not changed after promoting Leo,
Kelly asked that the Investigators clean their desks regularly and to
use his office as an example. The Petitioner, as a result, routinely
cleaned her desk once a month using Pine-Sol because the
maintenance workers were not allowed to clean or dust the
Investigator’s desks. The Petitioner began cleaning her desk one
morning, and Leo and Miller came into the Investigative area and
Miller asked Leo what the Pine-Sol smell was. At this moment, Leo
said the smell was “offensive”. The smell! was offensive to Miller, yet
Miller’s work area is set up outside of the enclosed Investigative area.
Leo harassed the Petitioner about the cleaning solution the Petitioner
had been using for the past three years, after Miller rendered her
opinion.

Drying Umbrella: Ona rainy Monday morning, the Petitioner
arrived to work and left her umbrella opened in her cubicle to dry, as
usual. When Leo arrived to work, she took her coat off, walked by
the Petitioner’s cubicle and demanded the Petitioner remove her
umbrella from her cubicle and place it on Leo’s chair, next to Leo’s
desk. Leo’s request made no sense at all, ordering the Petitioner to
place a wet umbrella on a chair, yet Leo persistently harassed the
Petitioner about the umbrella, forcing the Petitioner to seek Kelly’s
intervention. Kelly said he saw no reason why the Petitioner could
not keep her umbrella in her cubicle and he thought Leo overreacted.
At this point, however, Leo had established a pattern of using her
authority by singling out and harassing the Petitioner whenever she
felt either threatened or insecure in her position as Supervisor.

Vacuuming Cubicle: In January 1995, after a three-day holiday-
weekend, the Petitioner’s cubicle, as well as the rest of the
Investigative area had not been cleaned over the weekend. The
trashcans were full and trails of paper had accumulated on the floor.

5

The Petitioner had more trails of paper around her cubicle than the
other areas in the department. As a result, the Petitioner attempted to
clean her area and the immediate walking area with a vacuum cleaner
she had obtained from the building office. Leo came into the
department and angrily yelled, “TURN THAT THING OFF!!” Leo
bitterly and harassingly said the Petitioner had been causing a
distraction to the other two Investigators who were in the department,
at the time (Al Holzapfel and Tal Layne). The Petitioner explained to
Leo that before she turned the vacuum on, she made sure the others
were not on their phones. Leo insisted, however that the Petitioner
was Causing a distraction and as a result, informed Kelly about the
Petitioner using the vacuum cleaner to remove some of the paper on
the flocr.

Handling a Hot Call: After the Petitioner completed a “Hot Call”

(a call from merchants alerting the BCC company of a potential lost
card or theft usage during a transaction and on-location), Leo later
received a call from a clerk of the merchant where a hot call generated
from. Leo said the clerk told her the Petitioner had been rude for
asking the mandatory, routine questi~ns: “if whether the clerk has the
card in her possession, the name of the merchant, location, city and
state of the merchant, etc.” The caller (merchant) refused to answer
the standard questions, and only wanted to know the status of the
card. Subtle implications were also made, by the caller, about the
person using the card and his race (black) and the Petitioner sounding
black, during the call.

Leo verbally reprimanded the Petitioner and said the Petitioner
shou!d not have been rude to the clerk because the bank does not want
to lose merchants. In essence, Leo was saying, the Petitioner should
not perform her job correctly by following the department guidelines
when handling hot calls. During Hot Calls, a person attempting to use
a stolen credit card can call BCC and request verification or the status
of the card while posing as a merchant.

6

There are specified rules that merchants are required to follow,
including "cooperation" with the bank when a call is generated into
the center. Leo offered no supervisory support. She automatically
showed her allegiance to the caller/clerk, leaving the Petitioner
feeling helpless after attempting to simply perform the structured
procedure designed to prevent the bank from being potentially
defrauded when handling Hot Calls.

Laser '95 Idea/Suggestion: FNB sponsored an employee
Idea/Suggestion campaign called "Laser '95" whereby employees
submit suggestions and ideas to improve a product or service. The
Petitioner thought of an idea and attempted to prepare the
documentation. The Petitioner had informed the other Investigators
that she would be at the typewriter, and she informed the support staff
that she would take all of her phone calls. Leo came out of Joe
Barry's office (Officer Of the Fraud/Security Department and Kelly's
Manager), approached the Petitioner, and observed what the
Petitioner had been typing and harassingly said, "You have to get
yack to work! You are needed back there" (in the Investigative
rea). Leo had been in Barry's office and really did not know what
the Investigators were doing, and if the Petitioner's assistance, in fact,
had been needed, the Investigators would have known where to find
the Petitioner. Once again, Leo retaliated, singled out, and harassed
the Petitioner. Perhaps Leo felt challenged or insecure of her
authority after leaving Barry's office and directed her feelings toward
the Petitioner by exercising her authority over the Petitioner.

In comparison to Leo's harassment against the Petitioner, the
previous month, Investigator Al Holzapfel prepared and submitted a
suggestion and received a monetary reward, as a result. During an
Investigator’s meeting, Leo recognized and congratulated Holzapfel
for his efforts. Several years ago, before Leo became Frank's
Assistant, she too, prepared and submitted ideas and received
substantial monetary rewards.

Managerial Duties: The following is a list of Investigators in
seniority order:

Tal Layne

Steve Thompson

Bob Cannon

Tami Neuberger (before leaving)

Connie Watson (Consuelo)

Al Holzapfel

Sheila Triplett

Shawn Toney

Christine Steele

When Frank Kelly went on vacation or planned to be away from the
bank, he would assign an Investigator to perform his management
responsibilities. Both Kelly and Leo were scheduled to be away from
the bank at the same time and therefore, would have to assign an
Investigator to assume management responsibilities. Layne,
Thompson, Cannon, and Neuberger had previously been given the
opportunity to assume the supervisory role in seniority order, yet Leo
intentionally overlooked the Petitioner and chose the next Investigator
in line, Al Holzapfel. The Petitioner had been in the department a
year and a half longer than Holzapfel and she demonstrated above
average Investigative knowledge and excellent chargeback and
recovery results. When both Leo and Kelly requested additional
research for Law Enforcement purposes, the Petitioner efficiently
supplied the requested information or found solutions to their non-
case related issues. Leo would, without hesitation, at times, ask the
Petitioner to resolve potentially fraud matters outside of her normal
scope of Investigative responsibilities. Kelly allowing Leo to
ultimately choose the Investigator to assume the management
responsibilities, overlooke Vivian Hart in being promoted and chose
Al Holzapfel instead.

During lower court briefing, the Respondent's Counsel stated Leo's
rationale was based on what the Petitioner's "Peers" thought of her,
but Leo had already set the opinion and tone and even provided an
example for the others, when she demonstrated the type of
relationship she and the Petitioner would have, two weeks after Leo
became Frank's Assistant, by embarrassing the Petitioner in front of
the others (the Petitioner's Peers") at the Elevator on the 6th Floor.

Sharing Information with Fellow Investigators: Given the

consistent effort Leo put into retaliating and harassing the Petitioner
on almost every action the Petitioner made, when the Petitioner
attempted to share the Headhunter information with the other
Investigators, instead of Leo "correcting" this action made by the
Petitioner, Leo came over to the Petitioner's desk, after reading the
copy placed on her desk, and asked the Petitioner if she had given a
copy to her alone, or to the other Investigators in the department, as
well. The Petitioner told Leo, she had given a copy to the others,
also. Once again, instead of Leo demonstrating supervisory support
or allegiance of any kind toward the Petitioner, Leo used the fact that
the Petitioner had photocopied and shared the information with others
(and not just her) as a final weapon against the Petitioner. If Leo had
the slightest idea that giving the others "a copy" of the information
was inappropriate, and that the Petitioner's job could be in jeopardy,
Leo could have told the Petitioner that she should "verbally" tell the
others, since receiving Headhunter calls, in the department, in and of
itself, was an accepted activity. Leo simply stated, "O.K." and
walked away.

The next morning when the Petitioner arrived to work, Leo
met the Petitioner at her cubicle and said, "Connie, Joe Barry wants to
see you." When the Petitioner went into Barry's office, he held a
copy of the Headhunter information in his hand and asked, "Did you
write this?" The Petitioner said, "Yes," and Barry said,

"Well then, You are Fired!"

During the course of the Petitioner's employment as an
Investigator, the Petitioner realized the Bank's involvement and
connection with a 3rd party Law Enforcement Entity (Secret Service,
FBI, etc.) who secretly surveilled the department and conferred with
Joe Barry, Frank Kelly, and in some cases, Tal Layne and Steve
Thompson. The work and observance of the 3rd Party Entity resulted
in manipulated activity among the Investigators, specifically targeting
the Petitioner. The "Hidden Voice" (or Law Enforcement Entity
within the company) harassed the Petitioner on a daily basis and the
Petitioner sensed the middle ground she had been placed in, between
BCC Management and the Law Enforcement Entity.

Other 3rd Party Law Enforcement Connected activity include
the harassment, manipulation and abuse the Petitioner suffered while
under the employ of FNB, by Federal Agents posing as Agents and
Satanic Advocates. The Petitioner believes the Agents/Satanic
Advocates who have the most knowledge of the harassing and
manipulative abuse against the Petitioner include: Kelly B. Turner,
Dan Jones, Mark Lowelry (possible twin), Tim Yelder (possible
twin), Ellis Tate (possible twin or triplet), and Theron Cook and his
multiple birthed brothers, Deron , Feron, Beron, Geron, Meron,
Peron, Ceron and Eron and quite possibly Heron Cook. The mere
mentioning of the Agent's/Advocates names, subtly places the
Petitioner, as well as her family in jeopardy, currently and while she
worked at FNB.

The Petitioner is a God-fearing Christian who believes in
Jesus Christ. The Petitioner believes the Law Enforcement Agents
agreed to become Satanic advocates or serious challengers of the
Satanic organization, from the result of Children who women thought
were supposedly aborted between 1980 to the present, but in actuality
were not and were placed in the hands of the Satanic organization.

10

The Satanic organization, along with other Law Enforcement Entities
watched the Petitioner through secret video surveillance and
"peeping" during the 70's and 80's and generated the idea of saving
the aborted children, then using and sexually abusing the children for
their Satanic purposes.

The Petitioner believes three of her unaborted children are
possibly in Foster homes from the the result of the work of
undercover Law Enforcement Agents, but the children are oblivious
to the satanic pasts they were forced to be a part of, and are now
living their lives as if nothing ever happened.

Most recently, and while under the employ of FNB, in an
effort to protect the unaborted children, the Agents continued in their
work with the Satanic organization by creating other children for
supposedly Satanic purposes. Agents secretly manipulated the
Petitioner as a subject to conduct their operation. The Agents secretly
gained access into her apartment, at night, and conducted their
abusive behavior with her while she slept. She believes Sperm has
been attached to her Ovum, thus creating seeds of offspring to sell and
barter within the Satanic organization. In essence, developing a new
form of Slavery. The Petitioner also believes not only African
American Children have been produced, but children with lighter skin
tones, soft grain hair and lighter colored eyes (appearing Mixed,
Mexican, Italian and Caucasian) have been produced, thus giving
those in the Satanic organization the unknown presumption of
purchasing or bartering a child supposedly produced by a colored
male/Agent or Advocate and a Caucasian or mixed female, etc. In
actuality, the Agent/Advocate scientifically created children for the
Satanic organization, perhaps to give the appearance of creating
"racial unity" or oneness in their organization. The lighter skin toned
children are from the result of multiple birthed Agents scientifically
combining their Semen together to create one X or Y chromosome,
and attaching it to the Ovum and then removed and sent through a

11

birthing process similar to the Children who were supposedly aborted.
The Petitioner does not know the exact number of children produced
from her, but it has been an ongoing consistent abuse over the past 3
to 7 years. The Agents, however, should have complete details.

As a result of the Agent's Investigation, presence and
penetration within the state of Nebraska, some of the children are no
longer wanted by the buyers and purchasers within the Satanic
organization, and may have been placed in the hands of the
government arena, while other children are being stubbornly held to
perhaps be used as the buyer or purchaser wishes and dares anyone to
try and take them.

The Agents also abused the Petitioner's naturally born son,
Brandon Watson by administering a Sinus Allergy through his nasal
system, as well as a deep puncture in his foot. Brandon woke up one
morning vomiting lotion after the Benny Hinn Miracle Crusade, here
in Omaha. Pastor Benny Hinn had prophetically spoke of satanic
activity occurring in this city, and it involved some of the leaders of
the city. The Petitioner sang in the choir during the Crusade, and her
son, Brandon, met her at the auditorium the night before he vomited
lotion.

Additionally, the Petitioner also has life-long disease, called
Crohn's, that may have been administered to her by the
Agents/Advocates or is a direct reaction from the result of her
reproductive system, during the course of the Federal Agent's
investigation/activity.

Still another challenging strategic operation the Law
Enforcement/Military Entity has created and are currently in the midst
of, from the result of the innocent, and maternally and paternally
lonely Children, are people who have been pronounced dead, but are
in actuality alive and are being held against their will.

12

ty a a

|

The supposedly dead people are using technically advanced video
equipment to watch and surveil people throughout the United States.
A few of the people include the Petitioner’s family members: Sarah
Watson-Grant, Beatrice Watson, Walter Watson, Thelma Willis, Gene
Holt and her God-Daughter’s Mother, Annjanetta Cole, Marvin
Ammons, who was supposedly killed by the Omaha Police
Department, Brenda Woodard-Patterson, who supposedly died of
Cancer, Roosevelt Watson, Step-Grandfather of son, Brandon, and a
“Great Host of Others” who were either buried alive and then
retrieved by Satanic Advocates (and most recently, Law
Enforcement/Military groups) or they were CLONED for their
funerals, and forced to leave the land of the known living.

Cc.

Given the daily harassment and the secret, subtle way Americans have
learned to communicate with each other — coupled with an element of
intimidation, inferiority and threats of the various Entities abducting
you or members of your family under the disguise of death and using
clones during funerals, and in some cases, burying people alive, the
Petitioner believes the Panel Member(s) were subtly persuaded to
agree with the lower courts’ decision either from the result of having
knowledge of the unaborted children activity and/or the appearance of
death activity occurring throughout the United States, coupled with
being subjected to subtle intimidating words and gestures directed to
the Panel Member(s) prior to their briefing the Petitioner’s case, by
various entities who have a “worldly” interest in the Petitioner’s case:
Law Enforcement Entities, Satanic Organization, Racial Groups and
various Interest and World-Wide Media and Entertainment Groups.

13

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
A.

Due to non-investigation of the Petitioner’s case, in it’s entirety,
by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, at the onset
of the discrimination charge, the original charge of Harassment
and Retaliation still exists. The Petitioner filed a charge with
E.E.O.C. and alleged Discrimination and Retaliation, leading up to
being Terminated. The Omaha agency did not explore the retaliation
charges. The Investigator continuously asked for comparators in
order to conduct her Investigation. When the Petitioner complied, the
Investigator did not contact FNB to deny or refute the comparable
information, nor did E.E.0.C. allow the Petitioner to respond to
FNB’s rebuttal, as the Investigator had promised at the onset of the
Investigation. The Investigator never contacted FNB.

B.

The Legal Requirements for Discrimination and Retaliation
Charges were satisfied: Prima Facie, Temporal Proximity,
Disparate Treatment, Casual Connections, and a Proffered Reason for
Pre-Textual Illegal Discrimination. Two weeks after the Petitioner
made the racial comparison between Leo and Hart in regards to being
promoted, the Petitioner met Leo at the elevator on the 6" floor along
with the others in the department and intentionally embarrassed the
Petitioner in front of her Peers, Tal Layne, Steve Thompson and
Adrienne Miller, who listened as Leo abrasively harassed the
Petitioner. The Petitioner was not late for work, as the Counsel for
FNB suggested in lower court briefing, and if the Petitioner had even
taken a break, she would have been within her employment right and
should not have been subjected to being harassed and embarrassed in

14

front of her Peers. Not only did the Petitioner suffer Disparate
Treatment perpetuated by Leo, but Leo intentionally inflicted
emotional harm upon the Petitioner. Leo had never belittled or
embarrassed the others she took cigarette breaks with, who
periodically took extra unauthorized smoke breaks throughout the
day, with and without Leo. Leo displaying to the others her
supervisory authority over the Petitioner two weeks after racially
comparing Leo to Hart is clearly a Proffered Reason for Pretextual
Illegal Discrimination within Temporal Proximity. Moreover, Prima
Facie is established, as well.

Other examples of Leo's intentional harassment and Pretextual
Illegal Discrimination perpetuated from the result of the Petitioner
racially comparing Leo, Hart and Miller include, Leo obsessively
harassing the Petitioner to remove her umbrella from her cubicle, as
well as Leo harassingly demanding the Petitioner to "get back to
work" while the Petitioner prepared a FNB Idea/Suggestion. The
Petitioner suffered Disparate Treatment because Leo had not harassed
others who prepared Ideas, specifically, Al Holzapfel, but instead,
praised him for winning an award, for his idea, during a meeting.

Still another example involves Leo overlooking the Petitioner
for Managerial duties and choosing Al Holzapfel instead. In terms of
length of time in the department, Holzapfel had not been in the
department longer than the Petitioner, yet the Petitioner had not been
given the opportunity to skip over Investigators Cannon and
Thompson, who had the opportunity to perform the duties and had
been in the department longer than the Petitioner. This denial and
overlooking of managerial duties clearly demonstrated Pretextual
Illegal Discrimination, based on the Petitioner racially comparing
Leo, Hart and Miller, and Leo holding it against the Petitioner in
retaliation.

The Respondent's Counsel relied solely upon the affidavits of
Joe Barry, Frank Kelly and Glen Beauchamp of Human Resources.
Human Resources knew there was an on-going problem in the

15

Investigative area concerning harassment against the Petitioner.

So much so, Robert Urban, Glen Beauchamp's manager, specifically
called the Petitioner from her duties to inquire how things were, and if
the Petitioner wanted to discuss any issues with him (two to three
weeks before being terminated). Yet, Glen Beauchamp upheld the
decision of the BCC management staff. The Respondent's affidavits
contend the Petitioner had been "warned". The "memo" generated by
Kelly in March 1993 and addressed to the Petitioner from the result of
using the copier to photocopy a letter, however, referred to "personal"
use of bank's equipment. The Petitioner simply shared the
Headhunter information with the others via photocopy, as opposed to
verbally telling the others, which Kelly said was "O.K." to do at the
onset of the Petitioner's career as an Investigator. Kelly did not
distinguish between verbally sharing or photocopied sharing of
Headhunter information.

8

Other Casual Connections, while under the employ of FNB include
the harassment, manipulation and abuse against the Petitioner under
the orchestration of Federal Agents. The Petitioner realized the
Bank's connection with a contracted 3rd Party Law Enforcement
Entity, i.e., Secret Service, FBI, ect.

During the Petitioner's employment with FNB and thereafter,
the Agents secretly gained access into the Petitioner's apartment, at
night, and conducted their abusive behavior with her while she slept,
during the night. The multiple birthed Agents/Advocates (specifically
the Cook's, and at least one occasion or chromosome with one of the
Tate Agent/Advocates), scientifically had their Semen combined
together to create X and Y Chromosomes. The Semen had been,
perhaps, secretly taken from discarded, full, condoms by one or more
of the Agents/Satanic Advocates.

16

Thus, Golden, Brown, Mixed, Mexican, Italian and Caucasian-
looking Children have been produced for Satanic purposes throughout
the United States.

The Agents/Advocates who are also a part of FNB’s 3" Party Law
Enforcement Entity is within the scope of the Petitioner’s suit and
contribute to 2 of the abuse and harassment the Petitioner suffered.
The Agents inflicted abuse upon the Petitioner over the past three to
eight years and have also inflicted abuse upon the Petitioner’s son,
Brandon Watson for the purpose of attempting to use him as an
example for Satanic organization purposes.

The Law Enforcement Agent Entity’s purpose and the Satanic
Advocacy purpose are to do what their names imply...........
SECRET/INVESTIGATION, and both organizations have
strategically placed the Petitioner in the center of THEIR on-going,
never-ending battle via constant 24 hour monitoring and surveillance
of the Petitioner, Innocent Babies and Children, and quite possibly
(un)fertilized frozen eggs produced from the Petitioner. The
Petitioner has children scattered throughout America, with some of
them under the disguise and guardianship of other Agents/Advocates.

In addition to the monetary amount the Petitioner is asking for,
she is also asking the Supreme Court to help her reclaim the children
which were produced, without her consent, and taken from her and
sold (regardless of their appearance) over the past three to eight years
from the result of the Federal Agent’s undercover battle with the
Satanic organization. Subsequently, it is important to note,
Spiritually, God has reclaimed the souls and spirit of ALL the lonely
and Innocent Children: The Unaborted Children and the Children
produced from the result of Law Enforcement/Military activity and
their intervention within the Satanic organization.

Moreover, the Petitioner asks the court to help her find and
legally reclaim her three children who were supposedly aborted,
Caprina Watson, whose satanic given name may be Amy or Amanda,
clinically aborted 2-19-86, Carina Watson, whose satanic given name
may be Tracey or Stacey, clinically aborted 10-18-86, and Corinthian
Watson, whose satanic given name may be Jacob, clinically aborted
1-29-88. Caprina and Carina may be in Long Island, New York, and
Corinthian may very well be in Omaha. If my children are in Foster
Homes or are Adopted and belong to someone else, as the true,
maternal mother, how would I physically reclaim them?

Also, the Petitioner asks the court to help in the release of her
family members and the “Great Host” of others who were
pronounced dead, but are still alive, including, Thelma Willis, (Step
Grandmother who supposedly died during Petitioner’s employment
with FNB), Beatrice Watson, (Aunt, who supposedly died on
Petitioner’s birthday and while employed with FNB), Sarah Watson-
Grant (Aunt), and Walter Watson (Uncle).

18

CONCLUSION

This Petition for Certiorari should be granted for the sake of the
harassment the Petitioner and her naturally born son suffered while
| under the employ of FNB and thereafter, from the result of the
knowledge and orchestration of events by Federal Agents(3" Party
: Entity within FNB), and for the sake of Innocent Missing Human
Beings.

Respectfully Submitted,

Consuelo Watson, Pro Se
11718 Norwick Plaza #34
Omaha, Nebraska 68164
(402 )493-8121

19

Consuelo Watson, Appellant
v.
First National Bankcard Center, Appellee
No. 98-1518

United States Court of Appeals,
For The Eighth Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the District of Nebraska

July 6, 1998
Consuelo Watson, Pro Se
George C. Rozmarin of Stryker and Stryker, for Appellee

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS
SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIUM.

Consuelo Watson appeals from the district court’s! entry of
summary judgment in favor of defendant in her action alleging
retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2000e-17. After carefully reviewing
the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we affirm the
judgment of the district court. See 8" Cir. R. 47B. We deny
Watson’s pending motion.

' The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska
App. |

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
Case Number 8:96CV651

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:
CONSUELO M. WATSON, Plaintiff

V.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA,
(FIRST BANKCARD CENTER), Defendant

Before the court is filing no. 6, the “Motion For Summary
Judgment” filed by the defendant, First National Bank of Omaha, who
“moves”, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 for summary judgment as a
matter of law, in support whereof Defendant relies upon the pleadings
and the Affidavits of Frank Kelly, Joseph W. Barry and Glenn
Beauchamp.” The Defendant has also submitted an “Index of
Evidence: (filing no. 7) in support of its motion for summary
judgment. The plaintiff has submitted her “Objections To Summary
Judgment” (filing no. 12), including supporting evidentiary materials,
and her “Additional Objections and Answers to Defendant’s Request
of a Motion for Summary Judgment” (filing no. 13) which the clerk
has filed in the court file for purposes of clarity of the record.

BACKGROUND

Connie Watson filed her Complaint (filing no. 2) against the
defendant, First National Bank of Omaha, on December 31, 1996. In
her Complaint, Watson alleges that the defendant discriminated
against her on the basis of her race. Watson is a black woman who
was employed by the defendant from January, 1987 until May 25,

App. 2

1995. At the time her employment was terminated, Watson worked as
a credit card investigator in the defendant’s First Bankcard Center.

In late October or early November 1994, Watson spoke with
Frank Kelly, Operations Officer and Director of Security of the First
Bankcard Center, concerning the promotion of Adrienne Miller, a
white woman, over Vivian Hart, a black woman. Miller was promoted
to the position of administrative assistant. Watson alleges that, after
her discussion with Kelly about the promotion of Miller over Hart, the
defendant engaged in a pattern of retaliation against Watson which
eventually culminated in her termination of employment May 25,
1995. In his affidavit, Kelly states that he informed Watson that is
was inappropriate to discuss the employment circumstances of other
employees and that seniority was not used in making employment
decisions (filing no. 6). Additionally, Kelly informed Watson that
race was not a factor in the promotion decision.

Watson asserts that Kelly and Watson’s immediate supervisor,
Michelle Leo, engaged in a pattern of retaliation subsequent to
Watson’s discussion with Kelly concerning Miller’s promotion.
Specifically, Watson alleges that Leo refused to allow Watson to use
a strong-smelling disinfectant to clean her work cubicle and required
Watson to move her umbrella which Watson had left open to dry in
her cubicle area. Moreover, Watson asserts that Leo refused to permit
Watson to run a vacuum cleaner in her work area during working
hours, and that Leo took the side of a consumer who had complained
that Watson was rude during a “hot call.” Additionally, Watson
claims she improperly counseled regarding her tardiness. Watson also
claims that she, unlike other employees, was not permitted to make a
suggestion under the “Laser 95 Idea” program, because Leo ordered
Watson to return to work. Finally, Watson asserts that she was
unfairly passed over to be a temporary supervisor for a few days when

App. 3

eG 8 8 oS Fg Be AE ET OE es

both Kelly and Leo were on vacation. All of these incidents of
retaliation apparently took place in late 1994 or early 1995. !

In late May, 1995 Watson received a phone call from a “head
hunter” who was looking for individuals to apply for employment
with an entity other than the defendant. Watson, who asserts that she
believed her actions to be in accordance with company policy,
prepared a document which detailed the potential job opening, the
terms of employment and possible salary. Then, apparently after using
the company’s copy machine to reproduce the informational
document, Watson distributed the document among her co-workers.
On May 25, 1995 K-lly and Joseph W. Barry, Vice President of
Credit Card Risk Management, questioned W atson about her
preparation of the document. When Watson failed to deny that she
had prepared the document pertaining to the employment solicitation,
her employment with the defendant was terminated. Both Barry and
Kelly have submitted affidavits, each stating that the decision to
terminate Watson was wholly unrelated to Watson's’ discussion with
Kelly about Miller’s promotion.

ANALYSIS

When presented with a motion for summary judgment, a court
must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party
and gives the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences
that may be drawn from the evidence. Moore v. Webster, 932 F. 2d
1229, 1230-31 (8 Cur, 1991). The moving party must demonstrate to
the court the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In a discrimination suit, summary

>

! Watson also asserts that First National Bank has retaliated against her by hiring a
group that “is either of a cult, a satanic or klu klux klan nature, and they usually
harass the PLAINTIFF while she is driving, or in places of public establishments”
See filing no. 12, pg. 8.

App. 4

judgment is granted sparingly. David v. F leming Companies, Inc., 55
F. 3d 1369 (8" Cir. 1995),

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified the
standard to be used in discrimination cases:

In discrimination cases, it is now well settled that a plaintiff's
presentation of a prima facie creates a legal presumption of
unlawful discrimination. This presumption places an obligation
upon the employer to produce evidence of a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff's discharge. If the
employer carries this burden, the legal presumption of unlawful
discrimination drops out of the picture. Once this occurs. . . [t]he
defendant's production (whatever its persuasive effect) having
been made, the trier of fact proceeds to decide the ultimate
question: whether plaintiff has proven that the defendant
intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff. The factfinder’s
disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly
if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may,
together with the elements of the prima facie case. suffice to
show intentional discrimination.

Ryther v. Kare 11, 108 F. 3d 832, 836 (8" Cir. 1997) (en banc)
(citations and internal quotations omitted), “Obviously, ... the
plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence of the elements of the
prima facie case and where necessary, adduce sufficient proof of
pretext to meet the traditional tests of summary judgment and
judgment as a matter of law.” Id. At 838 (citing Rothmeier v.
Investment Advisers, Inc., 85 F. 3d 1328. 1335 (8thCir. 1996)).

Section 704(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-3(a), states in pertinent part:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
discriminate against any.. -employees... because [the employee]

App. 5

has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice
by this subchapter, or because [the employee] has made a charge,
testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an
investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff has the
initial burden of establishing: (1) that the plaintiff participated in
protected activity, (2) that an adverse employment action was taken
against the plaintiff; and (3) that there was a casual connection
between the adverse employment action and the protected activity.
Steven's v. St. Louis Univ. Med. Ctr., 97 F. 3d 268, 270 (8" Cir.
1996); see also Feltmann v. Sieben, 108 F. 3d 970 (8" Cir. 1997).

In this instance, the court assumes that Watson has established
that she engaged in a prc.ected activity when she questioned the
promotion of Miller, a white woman, over Hart, a black woman.
Moreover, Watson has established that an adverse employment
action, namely termination of her employment, was taken against
her.” However, Watson’s evidence of a casual connection between
her complaints to Kelly about Miller's promotion and her ultimate
termination is, at best, weak. Watson questioned Kelly about Miller’s
promotion in late October or early November, 1994; yet, Watson’s
employment was not terminated until May 25, 1995. Termination of
Watson’s employment, approximately six months after she discussed
with Kelly the fact that Hart was not promoted, “is by itself
insufficient to support a claim of casual connection.” Feltmann, 108
F.3d at 977. However, for purposes of this motion for summary
judgment, the court will assume that plaintiff's other allegations of
retaliation, including reprimands for tardiness and failure to allow
Watson to serve as a temporary supervisor, provide a sufficient causal

* The court makes no finding whether the plaintiff's other alleged adverse

employment actions, including the incidents relating to vacuuming, drying her

umbrella, making suggestions for the bank’s Laser 95 contest, reprimands for

tardiness and denial of an opportunity to serve as a temporary supervisor constitute

adverse employment actions for purposes of this motion for summary judgment.
App. 6

connection between her complaints and the defendant’s ultimate
decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment. Hence, the court will
assume that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of
retaliation.

Once the plaintiff establishes her prima facie case, “‘a rebuttable
presumption of discrimination arises and the burden of production
shifts to the bank to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason”
for the plaintiff's termination. Thomas v. First Nat’| Bk. Of Wynne,
111 F.3d 64, 66 (8" Cir. 1997) (citing Ryther, 108 F. 3d at 835). In
this instance, the defendant has articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason fcr the plaintiff's termination, namely, the
plaintiff's employment was terminated because she circulated a notice
trom a “head hunter” that solicited employees of the defendant for
non-bank employment and had used the bank’s copying equipment
and supplies to reproduce the notice. Filing no. 6 (Affidavit of Kelly),
{ 12; Affidavit of Barry, § 3; Affidavit of Beauchamp, 4] 5).

Once the defendant comes forward with evidence of a
legitimated, nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff's termination,
the presumption of discrimination created by the plaintiff's prima
facie case disappears, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving
that the proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason is pretextual
and that the real reason for her termination was intentional
discrimination. Thomas, 111 F.3d at 66 (citing Ryther, 108 F.3d at
835). After reviewing the record, the court finds and concludes that
the plaintiff has submitted no evidence suggesting that the defendant's
proffered reason for her termination is pretextual and, furthermore,
that the plaintiff has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support
her ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination. In their
affidavits, Kelly, Barry and Beauchamp state that Watson’s
discussion with Kelly concerning Miller’s promotion was in no way
related to the defendant’s ultimate decision to terminate Watson’s
employment. Filing no. 6 Affidavit of Kelly, § 12; Affidavit of Barry,
* 3; Affidavit of Beauchamp, 4 5). While these affidavits “can

App. 7

perhaps be characterized as self-serving,...they are plausible,
unchallenged and not circumstantially, rebutted.” Thomas v. Runyon,

108 F. 3d 957, 961 (8" Cir. 1997).

Consequently, the court finds and concludes that, even viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff
has failed to establish evidence from which a reasonable factfinder
could conclude that the defendant intentionally discriminated against
the plaintiff.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:

(1) That filing no. 6, the “Motion For Summary Judgment” filed
by the defendant, First National Bank of Omaha (First Bankcard
Center), is granted;

(2) That filing no. 12, the “Objection To Summary Judgment”
filed by the plaintiff, Consuelo (Connie) Watson, is overruled;

(3) That filing no. 13, the “Additional Objections and Answers
to Defendant’s Request of a Motion for Summary Judgment” filed by
the plaintiff, Consuelo (Connie Watson) is overruled:

(4) That judgment will be entered in favor of the defendant, First
National Bank of Omaha (First Bankcard Center) and against the
plaintiff, Consuelo (Connie) M. Watson, on Watson’s complaint and

action; and

(5) That a separate judgment will be entered on this date in
accordance with this memorandum and order.

DATED this 7" day of July, 1997.

App. 8

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Thomas M. Shanahan
Thomas M. Shanahan
United States District Judge

App. 9

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
Case Number 8:96C V651

JUDGMENT:
CONSUELO M. WATSON, Plaintiff
v.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA,
(FIRST BANKCARD CENTER), Defendant

In accordance with the “Memorandum and Order” (filing no. __)
Entered and filed on this date,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED:

(1) That judgment is granted to the defendant, First National
Bank of Omaha (First Bankcard Center), and against the plaintiff,
Consuelo (Connie) M. Watson, on the defendant’s “Motion for
Summary Judgment” (filing no. 6);

(2) That filing no. 12, the “Objection To Summary Judgment”
filed by the plaintiff, C onsuelo (Connie) Watson, is overruled;

(3) That filing no. 13, the “Additional Objections and Answers
to Defendant’s Request of a Motion for Summary Judgment” filed by

the plaintiff, Consuelo (Connie Watson) is overruled; and

(4) That the complaint and action of Consuelo (Connie) M.
Watson are dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 7" day of July, 1997.

App.10

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Thomas M. Shanahan
Thomas M. Shanahan
United States District Judge

App.11

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386005_1448%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.